United States v. Carlos Salazar-Pena

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Carlos Salazar-Pena

436 F. App'x 825

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 8, 2011

Docket09-50585

StatusUnpublished

This text of 436 F. App'x 825 (United States v. Carlos Salazar-Pena) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Carlos Salazar-Pena, 436 F. App'x 825 (9th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Carlos Salazar-Pena appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 70-month sentence for being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Salazar-Pena’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. The appellant has filed a pro se supplemental brief and the government has filed an answering brief. We have considered both.

Based on our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80-81, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we remand the case to the district court with instructions that it strike the portion of the special condition of supervision which requires Salazar-Pena to “report to the probation officer within 24 hours of any reentry to the United States” because this requirement was included in the written judgment but not imposed at sentencing. See United States v. Napier, 463 F.3d 1040, 1042 (9th Cir.2006); see also United States v. Hicks, 997 F.2d 594, 597 (9th Cir.1993).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. AFFIRMED; REMANDED to correct the judgment.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Carlos Salazar-Pena appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 70-month sentence for being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Salazar-Pena’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. The appellant has filed a pro se supplemental brief and the government has filed an answering brief. We have considered both.

Based on our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80-81, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we remand the case to the district court with instructions that it strike the portion of the special condition of supervision which requires Salazar-Pena to “report to the probation officer within 24 hours of any reentry to the United States” because this requirement was included in the written judgment but not imposed at sentencing. See United States v. Napier, 463 F.3d 1040, 1042 (9th Cir.2006); see also United States v. Hicks, 997 F.2d 594, 597 (9th Cir.1993).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. AFFIRMED; REMANDED to correct the judgment.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

436 F. App'x 825, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-carlos-salazar-pena-ca9-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack